Lies, Hypocrisy, Intrigue, and 'Whataboutism' Surround Douma CW Investigation

Twitterati challenge journalist who bemoaned Douma testimony

as ‘bizarre & underwhelming’

© Bart Maat / AFP

Witnesses giving public testimony about the alleged chemical attack in Douma – what can be uncomfortable about that? A lot, according to one journalist, as the event was organized by Russia. Readers were not convinced.

© Michael KoorenNo attack, no victims, no chem weapons: Douma witnesses speak at OPCW briefing at The Hague (VIDEO)

The Intercept's Robert Mackey took issue with Russia's decision to allow an 11-year-old "victim" of the alleged attack to speak at The Hague about his experience, claiming that the boy's testimony was an affront to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons’ (OPCW) ongoing investigation and included nothing to support the theory that the gas attack was staged.

"Rather than wait for @OPCW to verify its claim that there was no chemical attack in Syria, Russia staged its own event at OPCW headquarters in The Hague and flew in an 11-year-old witness who said nothing to support the theory that he acted in a hoax video," Mackey wrote on Twitter, linking to his Intercept piece.

In his article, Mackey cites an OPCW statement which recommended that the boy, Hassan Diab, and sixteen other witnesses be interviewed by the fact-finding mission, and that the briefing should be postponed until after the investigation is completed.

However, Mackey's report failed to mention that according to Russia's envoy to the OPCW, Alexander Shulgin, the participants in The Hague event were ready to be interviewed – but were turned down by the OPCW investigators. "The experts are sticking to their own guidelines," Shulgin said during the briefing. "They've picked six people, talked to them, and said they were 'completely satisfied' with their account and did not have any further questions."

The OPCW statement cited by Mackey stated that "the team also interviewed some people related to the Douma incident, who were brought to Damascus."

It would seem that the Russian's concern, though they haven't actually stated it, is that the OPCW is gearing to whitewash the whole thing so that the USA, UK and France can continue to pretend they were justified in bombing Syria. It makes them complicit, intentionally, in a false flag operation. 

Dismissing the testimony as “bizarre” and “underwhelming,” Mackey soon discovered that his readers saw things a bit differently. “Actually, the case of Russia and the Syrians who appeared in the ‘White Helmets’ video, who testified there was no chemical attack, is overwhelmingly convincing. It is a far out conspiracy theory to suggest the Douma hospital workers were not telling the truth. This Intercept article is absolutely insane,” one commenter wrote.

The article’s comments section is inundated with criticisms of Mackey’s dismissive attitude towards the witnesses – and Mackey didn’t fare much better on Twitter.

"Rather than wait for the @OPCW to verify claims of a chemical attack in #Douma, the US, UK and France BOMBED Syria. Did you object to that, Robert?" Sharmine Narwani, a Middle East analyst and former senior associate at St. Anthony's College, Oxford, tweeted back at Mackey.

Narwani's objections to Mackey's line of reasoning appeared to resonate with many on Twitter. "You must have missed those new and smart missiles that were fired before verification," one user wrote in response to Mackey's tweet.

"Did the US, UK & #France wait for the #OPCW's conclusion before firing 100+ missiles into #Syria?" asked another.

Mackey responded to Narwani by claiming that he never said he supported the US-led missile attack against Syria, but that making such comparisons amounted to "whataboutism."

"You are the only one who compared the uncomfortable spectacle of bringing an 11-year-old to a press conference to airstrikes," Mackey wrote in reply to Narwani's comment. "Whataboutism is a tired, simplistic rhetorical strategy," he added.

Narwani shot back: "Please. You're gatekeeping now. Western media and politicians paraded around Bana, Omran, and Alan Kurdi's body to score cheap points. There was one child on a panel of half a dozen witnesses from Douma. Why was this one suddenly 'uncomfortable' for you?"

In a separate Twitter thread, Mackey hurled accusations of “whataboutism” at users who objected to the idea that Russia had “pre-empted” the OPCW investigation by allowing witnesses to speak at The Hague.

“If we accuse someone of gross hypocrisy [sp], the best answer they can give is, ‘that's whataboutism’?” one user wrote.

The OPCW fact-finding mission was initially delayed by the US-led missile strike against Syria in the early hours of April 14 – the same day that the team was scheduled to arrive in Damascus to begin its investigation.

There was also pushback against Mackey's claim that Diab's testimony did not raise questions about the authenticity of the widely-cited video that claims to show the chaotic aftermath of a gas attack.

"He is alive and well, as you can see, that supports the theory," one Twitter user noted.

The Twitterati were quick to point out the glaring hypocrisy of completely discounting testimony from Diab, while fawning over (and offering book deals to) Bana al-Abed, the Aleppo child who allegedly used her pristine English to tweet passionate calls for Western military intervention in Syria. Numerous video interviews have since shown that Bana struggles with the most basic English phrases. It has also been revealed that her father was a militant in the former jihadist-controlled city.

Wow! Is that a big surprise? NO!

One thing is for sure; there is a huge difference between reports from reporters who actually went to Douma and those who did not!

UK Reporter Astounded By What He Found in Douma

German Reporter Says Douma was Completely Staged - MSM Won't Report It

NPR's Deplorable Reporting Covers Up the Ethnic Cleansing of Jews in Holy Land

Jewish family: Hebron, 1928.

Daniel Pomerantz, Honest Reporting

In its article, “7 Things To Know About Israeli Settlements,” National Public Radio manages to demonstrate just how little its writers know about settlements, Israel and how to practice journalism.

Our critique of this article is not about settlements, but about basic journalistic standards.

Ethnic Cleansing in the West Bank

Reporters Greg Myre and Larry Kaplow begin by claiming:

When Israel captured the West Bank in the 1967 Six-Day War, no Israeli citizens lived in the territory.

This stunning lack of context ignores that Jews had indeed lived in Hebron, Bethlehem and many other towns in the land historically called “Judea and Samaria,” until 19 years earlier – when Jordanian forces (with the help of local Palestinians) expelled or killed all of the indigenous Jews, and then re-named the entire area “The West Bank.”

The only reason the population of the West Bank was entirely Palestinian by 1967 was because they expelled the indigenous Jews in 1948.

Thousands of photographs from the 19th century confirm that Jews were in the land, and at that time, few, if any, Palestinians were.

Doesn’t the ethnic cleansing of an entire indigenous Jewish population deserve a mention from NPR?

Kaplow and Myre further distort history in the very same sentence by saying “Israel captured the West Bank…” yet covering up the reason why: Jordan had turned those lands into a launching point for a massive assault against Israel, with the intent to destroy the entire country.

Israel was forced to capture the West Bank in order to prevent Jordan’s advance, save Israel’s very existence, and save all the Jews in Israel from the same fate suffered by those Jews referenced above: total and complete ethnic cleansing.

Again, not even a mention?

Ethnic Cleansing in Jerusalem

In an encore of ignorance, Kaplow and Myre claim:

Shortly after the 1967 war, Israel annexed East Jerusalem, which is part of the West Bank and had a population that was then entirely Palestinian.

First of all, there was never any such entity as “East Jerusalem.” Jerusalem was one united city for several thousand years until Jordan invaded its eastern part in 1948. At that point, Jordan’s military (with the assistance of local Palestinians) expelled or killed all the Jews living in the areas it captured. Again: total and complete ethnic cleansing.

It was around 1948 when the expulsion of the Jews from across Middle East and North African Islam, went into high gear and more than 800,000 Jews were driven from those countries. The West Bank and east Jerusalem being under the authority of Jordan at the time would have been included in that massive attempt at ethnic cleansing. Have you ever heard of this before?

Kaplow and Myre also cover up from their readers that the area they call “East Jerusalem” includes the Temple Mount (the holiest site in Judaism) along with its famous Western Wall, the Old City, and Jerusalem’s ancient Jewish Quarter.

Yet all the authors have to say is “…a population that was then entirely Palestinian.”

HonestReporting interviewed Jewish refugees from the Jordanian invasion of Jerusalem, in order to paint a more complete picture of Jerusalem’s recent history.

Journalistic Failures

Kaplow and Myre indulge in a number of other misleading falsehoods, such as the claim:

While the Israelis tend to speak of East Jerusalem and the West Bank as two separate entities, the Palestinians regard them as a single body — the occupied West Bank.

In fact, Palestinians do not typically use the term “occupied West Bank,” but rather “occupied Palestine,” which they clearly define as being all of Israel.

When discussing Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza NPR selectively omitted the thousands of rockets fired at Israel from the Strip. Kaplow and Myre also criticize Israel’s military presence in the West Bank but fail to acknowledge that Palestinian terrorism forces Israel to maintain that military presence.

A journalist may explore complex topics and present varying viewpoints, but journalistic ethics do not allow the omission of critical context nor the distortion of objective historical facts, as Kaplow and Myre have done here.

NPR has covered up the massive scale ethnic cleansing of Jews in their own historic homeland. The result is not only offensive to the Israeli victims of these attacks and misleading to NPR readers, but also an embarrassment to the very profession of journalism.

NPR's reporting is typical of the antisemitic attitude that permeates most western media and is somewhat responsible for the growing anti-Jewish attitude that could well result in another Jewish holocaust within 100 years of the previous. Such a thing should be impossible but it is becoming more and more likely everyday to the great shame of humanity.